Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Realistic Battlefields  (Read 1245 times)

Mike Tanner

  • Wild Boar
  • *
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Realistic Battlefields
« on: February 22, 2017, 05:16:17 PM »
How do you fellows feel about your battlefields. Must your well painted miniatures move through/across realistic looking terrain which only adds to the overall experience. Or are you quite happy to just turn a Subbuteo football pitch upside-down and play on a flat green surface?

Do you use accessories, oil drums, ammo crates, carts, farm animals etc.? Can there ever be too many accessories on a good tabletop battlefield?
 
My opinion:


Not bad



Very bad

As usual, please feel free to bash me if you think I have things wrong.

Lurkio

  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 348
    • View Profile
    • Lurkio
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2017, 05:23:47 PM »
what is interesting is that some games seem to attract a better level of general presentation. For instance FoW lifted the bar consisterably on what was acceptable on the tabletop, and that has largely followed on with the likes of bolt action and 'skirmish' sized games...

I was asked to judged best painted army at a recent event (ancients) where really it was really tough to find anything that was worth of a prize!

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1529
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2017, 07:57:51 PM »
There is always a balance between clarity and "the look".  Players often need to know what scenery they are in if it affects dice rolls. A textured mat has become easier to source these days. Clarity is my first priority, followed by aesthetics.



martin

Leman

  • Supporter 2018
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2017, 09:25:35 AM »
Have to admit I come down on the side pf the aesthetic battlefield, probably because I like to see a battle unfold, rather than treating the game as a chess completion style game. (I don't do competition gaming).

myrm

  • Supporter 2018
  • Domestic Pig
  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2017, 04:37:47 PM »
For some ancients a large plain with the odd bit here and there is about accurate, for other systems things differ. Even FoW where table density is good a lot is abstracted (infantry in cover in open terrain et al) and too many bits can just get in the way - especially linear obstacles. Games that have area terrain concepts that you can slap down related scenery bits onto a template that defines the area are a great compromise - modellers can go wild, while those to whom too much clutters the game can use less or temporarily move bits for clarity.
Crossfire stands out to me as acutely dependant upon terrain and stuff on the table and so the more you put on the better, including minor dips and rolls. Modellers go nuts and it still works for gamers with a dislike of clutter because it is meaningful and feels like it affects the game
Other systems its more abstracted - the gridded PP games being an example - you fill squares at a time so having abstract terrain is handy, but also that abstraction allows you to do what you want with the scenery pieces (at least the PP game I cam familiar with anyway).
Naval wargaming is more difficult - a lot of the sea is pretty, um, consistent.

Its game, period, style and ruleset dependant but also there's an element of personal aesthetics and the best games for person X are where those factors cohabit successfully.

I generally like a lot of terrain - makes the games more challenging and manoeuvre based over simple line up and see how the dice fall.

Mike Tanner

  • Wild Boar
  • *
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2017, 07:13:43 PM »
Thank you for the input guys!

Kevan da G

  • Piglet
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2017, 04:05:31 PM »
Sometimes realistic goes too far!

https://dereksweetoys.com/burma-1944-2/


Leslie BT

  • Supporter 2018
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1008
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2017, 05:38:56 PM »
Kevin the game looks great have you been using it for Vietnam as well?

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1577
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2017, 09:06:24 AM »
Sometimes realistic goes too far!

https://dereksweetoys.com/burma-1944-2/

Wow - lovely table Kevan!

Would you mind sharing some thoughts on how you put it together / how modular it is? Is there some scenic matting [I'm surprised we don't see it in use more often on a wargames table] in there, or have you just done lots of very neat static grass? Very interested in how you went about this and how long it all took!

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1529
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2017, 09:13:20 AM »
That is a whole box of tasty terrain Kevan! Better than all those ancient games i played in the 1970 with an upturned burger box as a hill and some felt and a tree for a wood.

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1052
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2017, 09:55:19 AM »
I really do like nice terrain. But equally have played excellent games on terrain that was not much better than a book underneath a subbuteo pitch.

The balance is between aesthetically pleasing and practicality.

Leman

  • Supporter 2018
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 768
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2017, 03:15:00 PM »
Sean, that just about sums up my feeling, ie some effort should be made to make the battlefield look good so that it does the figures justice, but at the same time not so realistic that the figures cannot be placed without falling over or standing on top of roofs and tree tops.

Radar

  • Supporter 2018
  • Domestic Pig
  • *
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
    • Keep Your Powder Dry
Re: Realistic Battlefields
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2018, 02:06:27 PM »
I'm very much with the realistic battlefield camp. I'd love to be able to make a dedicated board, such as those that you see at conventions (in particular the US conventions) so all my stuff has to be storable and able to be rejigged for different battles. I've documented lots of components on my blog, here's one of the most relevant posts http://www.keepyourpowderdry.co.uk/2018/01/road-river-and-rail.html there's a few others too.